[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well

Javier Rua javrua at gmail.com
Thu Dec 7 16:25:02 UTC 2017


Yes Alexander, great point. Very useful distinctions.  Thank you!

Javier Rúa-Jovet
ALAC

+1-787-396-6511
twitter: @javrua
skype: javier.rua1
https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua 


El dic. 7, 2017, a la(s) 12:01 p. m., Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k at gmail.com> escribió:

> Thanks greg,
> 
> Everyone is and should be considered on equal terms here. That is why we still consider multi stakeholder approach as important in all policy development procedures. Let’s not forget that each and everyone has their perspectives.
> 
> We need to look at practical sense and ensure we don’t take this wG another 10 years before we deliberate on anything. We need to really find the middle grounds to move. From a GNSO perspective we have brought people from the different so/ac and it makes sense to this SG as well as to the WT but let us focus not only in one position and see merit in each other and have open minds to move things forward. I hate to say that some believe that what it comes to geonames instantly some take a track that says it  is their property. We are here to enable those people who do not participate in the policies but represent interests of people around the world. It is not only a government thning it is everyones busoness as well as the person on the ground as civil society. So please let us try and show some real interests. I know the challenges coming from certain cctld but that does not say that the geonames will sort the issues out. 
> 
> We are all grown ups and understand the challenges …work forward to achieve the best interest of the internet and the people using it.
> 
>> On Dec 7, 2017, at 19:52, Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Greg,
>>  
>> I agree with you 100% that the role of Governments WITHIN the “multi-stakeholder” PDP approach is “one of many”. As Olga already pointed out: it is even an “unequal” one, as GAC’s rights are restricted.
>> 
>> But I guess we are confusing cause and effect here:
>> The CURRENT role of this WT 5 and the gNSO (if you want: the ICANN PDP process in general) and their proponents has to be clearly distinguished from the future role of custodians of “geographical names”. Look at it as the “separation of powers”: the separation of legislative and judicial! I am in TOTAL AGREEMENT that in the current legislative PDP process the GAC should have just one of many voices. But indeed it is NOT “GAC” that is (or should) be the frontrunner of proposing wide-ranging protections of geographical names – as it isn’t the countries that need to be protected: IT IS THEIR CITIZENS that want to be protected! So even if we would “gag” GAC in this WT5 (which of course we won’t): The outcome would be just the same: wide-ranging protections of geo-names to protect the affected Internet Users from harm! 
>> 
>> The Government’s protection role comes into play later: Once we are talking judicial actions. Once somebody applies for “.turkey” – but they try to promote drugs – not the great nation of Turkey! We need then custodians in place who have SIMPLE tools at hand to be warned and to be able to PROTECT geographical names FOR THEIR CITIZENS (not for “themselves”). And the most simple tool is: Requirement of a letter of non-objection! If somebody wants a gTLD for drug promotion and choses “.turkey”: GREAT! Go for it. But make it easy for the Turkish Government to exercise its custodian role – and weed that application out!
>> 
>> So let’s please be cognizant of the separation of powers in the chain of events:
>> A) PDP 
>> B) real life application phase
>>  
>> During the PDP Governments will be one of many. Later during the application submission phase they will be the ONLY ones who are suited to guard The People’s geo identities. Unless of course we find another solution – which I am open for; but doubtful.
>> 
>> Is this distinction halfway intelligent? Have I explained it in a way that people understand it?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Alexander.berlin
>> 
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com] 
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 6:21 AM
>> To: Bonnie B Mtengwa <bmtengwa at potraz.gov.zw>
>> Cc: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>; alexander at schubert.berlin; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> The role of governments here is that of one set of stakeholders among many.  Governments don't get to be special stakeholders.  The essence of the multistakeholder model, rooted in the private sector (broadly defined), is that the people get to speak directly -- without the intermediation of governments.  
>>  
>> When government representatives speak here, their pronouncements don't carry extra weight.  The proposition has been put forth that when stakeholders speak, it is merely their own personal views.  If this is true for any stakeholders, it must be true for all.  Conversely, if it is not true for some stakeholders, it is not true for any.
>>  
>> The latter is clearly the case -- it is not true.  The multistakeholder model demands that each of us act in a representative capacity for the stakeholders in our particular community that do not participate directly.  This is not the special province of governments.  A fundamental truth of ICANN is that it is not and cannot be a "government-led" structure.  It is not merely a multistakeholder structure -- it is an equally multistakeholder structure.
>>  
>> I share Farzaneh's view that the utopian ideal of the government as nothing more than the representative of the people doesn't really hold true in reality.  Governments represent their own interests, which (for self-preservation) need to intersect with the interests of whoever (or whatever) put them in power -- party supporters, big donors, the establishment, etc.  That is not meant to invalidate governments -- just to caution against elevating them above other stakeholders in this process.
>>  
>> This is particularly true with regard to the topic of strings with geographic meanings (a/k/a geographic names).  These strings are not uniquely geographic; they have other meanings and applications.  We can't elevate the geographic meaning/application above other meanings/applications -- for that very reason we cannot elevate governments above other stakeholders.
>>  
>> Greg
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 2:16 AM, Bonnie B Mtengwa <bmtengwa at potraz.gov.zw> wrote:
>>> Dear Team
>>>  
>>> When relating to geo-Names we cannot avoid talking of Governments, because people in those areas are represented by their Governments, and the Governments appoints its own representatives in the GAC. 
>>> So whether legitimately elected or appointed, the fact is that Geo-Names are also in the purview of governments.
>>>  
>>> The role of governments then need to be clearly defined in our work, because they are critical if we need to move forward on this issue.
>>>  
>>> Bonnie 
>>>  
>>> From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
>>> Date: Monday, 04 December 2017 at 07:14
>>> To: <alexander at schubert.berlin>
>>> 
>>> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
>>>  
>>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kris Seeburn
> seeburn.k at gmail.com
> www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/
> 
> <KeepItOn_Social_animated.gif>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20171207/ab5e6e9f/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list